It's really a fair question, and honnestly as far as I'm concerned I have no definitive answer to it. How many other cryptocurrencies will there be? I don't know. Will miners start an other block chain when bitcoin reaches the 210,000nd block? I don't know either. If so, would that hurt bitcoin's monetary value? I doubt so but I'm not sure.
Only time will tell.
Topic: Thought Experiment: Is Bitcoin a Ponzi scheme? - page 5. (Read 12342 times)
There would be some incentive for miners to switch but miners only make up half of price negotiation.
For it to be worthwhile for the miners to switch the difference in amount mined would have to be greater than the difference in value. For that to happen the people using bitcoin to conduct transactions would need to switch and I don't see the incentive for them to switch.
If bitcoin wealth became concentrated enough and the large hoarders began to behave in monopolistic ways in order to increase the value of their own bitcoins you might see people jump ship for a bitcoin clone.
For it to be worthwhile for the miners to switch the difference in amount mined would have to be greater than the difference in value. For that to happen the people using bitcoin to conduct transactions would need to switch and I don't see the incentive for them to switch.
If bitcoin wealth became concentrated enough and the large hoarders began to behave in monopolistic ways in order to increase the value of their own bitcoins you might see people jump ship for a bitcoin clone.
Suppose a Bitcoin clone with little to no changes would startup tomorrow. Would miners switch?
I think they would, because early adoptors had (and still have) a big advantage with the current inflation model.
During the first year about half of all currently existing bitcoins were mined, while there were practically no transactions, and almost none of it has been spend.
Why would late comers simply accept this? If you newly learn about Bitcoin, you'll always have an incentive to start from zero.
Unlike gold, bitcoin is not unique and was never intended to be.
I'm not arguing on economic grounds, and do support the austrian school, so please don't restart the old inflation vs. deflation debate.
It's about sustainability of continuous network growth, which seems to need an equal playing ground in time.
I think they would, because early adoptors had (and still have) a big advantage with the current inflation model.
During the first year about half of all currently existing bitcoins were mined, while there were practically no transactions, and almost none of it has been spend.
Why would late comers simply accept this? If you newly learn about Bitcoin, you'll always have an incentive to start from zero.
Unlike gold, bitcoin is not unique and was never intended to be.
I'm not arguing on economic grounds, and do support the austrian school, so please don't restart the old inflation vs. deflation debate.
It's about sustainability of continuous network growth, which seems to need an equal playing ground in time.
Jump to: